Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1048
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Saturday, February 23 2002         Volume 01 : Number 1048

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 19:59:15 -0800
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Europe says, "I want my IPv!"

Migration to IPv6 and EEC:

http://news.com.com/2100-1033-842718.html

- -- 
Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
	Hermes Network Inc.
	Toronto, Canada

- ----
direct: 416.422.1034

icq: 34564103
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 20:50:53 -0800
From: "Genie Livingstone" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Domain name redemption: Supplemental paper / post-deletion transfers

Although a redemption and post deletion transfers may be worthwhile
considering - we should first look at the domain expiration policies.
It is imperative that a uniform domain expiration policy is installed prior
to implementing processes that FOLLOW the event of domain being expired by a
Registrar.
The issue of domain hoarding by a Registrar is much more pressing and there
are statistically many many more domains affected by domain hoarding
by a Registrar than domains affected by erroneous deletions.

The issue of domain hoarding by Verisign Registrar and issue of Verisign
Registry not releasing the domains in the first place needs to be resolved
first.

We have prepared a sample to demonstrate the issue and it's urgency:
full url and list is at:

http://www.eyeondomain.com/__aadomains-tabulated.htm

Data compiled on February 21, 2002
A cross sample of 4 letter domains
Sample is taken from domains in on hold status
beginning with letter A
first 100 search results
The list is compiled to provide quasi-statistical picture of current domains
that appear attractive and might have a potential application to many uses
as they could represent acronyms for business names beginning with words
like American, Association, All, etc...
Based on this table, an interesting picture of domain hoarding and
expiration policies across registrars emerged.
2% of domains were expired by Registrar but are still held by Verisign
Registry (AKAS.COM and ADIQ.COM)
8% of domains have expiration date dating back to 2000 - held by Verisign
Registrar for over 1 year past their expiry date.
47% of domains have expiration date older than 90 days
       15% of domain pool expired longer than 90 days belongs to
Register.com
       85% of domain pool expired longer than 90 days belongs to Verisign
Registrar
31% of domain pool expired from 45 to 90 days ago.
       out of this pool less than 1% is held by Register.Com and remainding
99% is held by Verisign Registrar.
20% of domains fall within 40-45 day past domain expiration date.
78% of the list are domains past 45 day of their expiration date
       out of this pool 10% belongs to Register.com and remaining 90% is
held by Verisign Registrar.

How can one deal with post deletion processes when major marketshare
Registrar does not release expired domains in a timely manner?  47% of our
sample list
expired more than 90 days ago, and 8% of domains expired more than 13 months
ago !  An ample time for domain owner to notice their domain has been
deactivated.

Cheers
Genie Livingstone
eyeondomain.com

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 02:17:18 -0800
From: Harold Whiting <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Uniform Domain Deletion Policy needed - at the REGISTRAR level.

As of a few days ago, NSI Registrar was backlogged with over 1.3 MILLION
names that are overdue for deletion.  Perhaps I should mention that this is
just the number of .COM names... total overdue seems to be well over 2
MILLION at this count.  What is that, ~14% of all names registered by VeriSign?

Chuck Gomes recently made the comment that the "the current high monthly
rate at which names are now deleting " should deplete the backlog soon.
However VeriSign Registrar (NSI Registrar) has failed to release anything
for almost 2 months!

It was my understanding that VeriSign Registrar had pledged last year to
have "eliminated the backlog entirely" by the first quarter of '02.  By my
calendar, that leave them about a week to live up to that - something I
don't see happening.

All this talk of "post deletion processes" and such, is off the mark, IMO.
What is needed is a UNIFORM Registrar's Deletion Policy that EVERY
registrar is mandated to follow.  Something like this:

1. Upon expiration of registration, should renewal fees not be paid to the
registrar, that name will be immediately put "on hold" and become unusable
to the registrant for a period of not less than 40 days, unless renewal is
made. Name may be renewed at any time during this period and promptly
removed from "on hold" status.

2. Domains that remain unpaid 40 days post expiry date shall be returned to
the registry to be made available for re-registration.  Registry shall
queue all names marked for deletion using the standard "5 day hold" process
used now.  No unpaid names shall remain in the registrar's control after 45
days, unpaid names must be deleted. Period. Registry fees charged to
Registrar's account will be refunded on all names returned to registry by
day 45 (just like now, except the registrar will now HAVE to hold the name
at least 40 days).

3.  All names will stay in the registry deletion queue for 5 days, then
they shall be deleted and be made available during the regular scheduled
batch deletion only.

This does many things and adds no additional layers/load/processes/nonsense.  

1. It provides the original Registrant with at least 40 days of opportunity
to "redeem/recover" the name in the most expeditious way possible - from
the registrar.  

2. It provides the original Registrant with plenty of notice (domain
doesn't work for 40 days) and gives registrant ample opportunity to reclaim
the name.

3. It provides a uniforn deletion process and schedule for both the
registrar and the registry, so there is no further complications.

4. It eliminates the "Hoarding/Warehousing" problem completely.

True, this does not provide VGRS with any sort of "additional revenue" from
some invented "product/service" but it does serve the registrants interests
and also removes a lot of the issues on the table right now in the most
elementary fashion.

- --HJW--

Harold Whiting
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 02:29:46 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Uniform Domain Deletion Policy needed - at the REGISTRAR level.

Friday, Friday, February 22, 2002, 2:17:18 AM, Harold Whiting wrote:

> 2. Domains that remain unpaid 40 days post expiry date shall be returned to
> the registry to be made available for re-registration.  Registry shall
> queue all names marked for deletion using the standard "5 day hold" process
> used now.  No unpaid names shall remain in the registrar's control after 45
> days, unpaid names must be deleted. Period. Registry fees charged to
> Registrar's account will be refunded on all names returned to registry by
> day 45 (just like now, except the registrar will now HAVE to hold the name
> at least 40 days).

This is a problem, Harold.

In effect you are mandating that a registrar tie up potentially
hundreds of thousands of dollars of its capital in past due domain
registration fees.  While this is not an issue for larger registrars,
or registrars owned by the Registry, or Registrars owned by larger
corporations, the smaller registries are the ones most likely to be
hurt by this, and potentially forced out of the business, or prevented
from getting into the business in the first place.

The ICANN recommendation eliminates that problem, and for that reason,
I think a strong argument can be made that it is the more fair option.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --

"There is no better way to exercise the imagination than the study of
the law. No artist ever interpreted nature as freely as a lawyer
interprets the truth."
- -- Jean Giradoux

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 03:03:07 -0800
From: Harold Whiting <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Uniform Domain Deletion Policy needed - at the REGISTRAR level.

At 02:29 AM 2/22/2002 -0800, you wrote:
>Friday, Friday, February 22, 2002, 2:17:18 AM, Harold Whiting wrote:
>
>> 2. Domains that remain unpaid 40 days post expiry date shall be returned to
>> the registry to be made available for re-registration.  Registry shall
>> queue all names marked for deletion using the standard "5 day hold" process
>> used now.  No unpaid names shall remain in the registrar's control after 45
>> days, unpaid names must be deleted. Period. Registry fees charged to
>> Registrar's account will be refunded on all names returned to registry by
>> day 45 (just like now, except the registrar will now HAVE to hold the name
>> at least 40 days).
>
>This is a problem, Harold.
>
>In effect you are mandating that a registrar tie up potentially
>hundreds of thousands of dollars of its capital in past due domain
>registration fees.  While this is not an issue for larger registrars,
>or registrars owned by the Registry, or Registrars owned by larger
>corporations, the smaller registries are the ones most likely to be
>hurt by this, and potentially forced out of the business, or prevented
>from getting into the business in the first place.
>
>The ICANN recommendation eliminates that problem, and for that reason,
>I think a strong argument can be made that it is the more fair option.

William,

  This is the way the "grace period" works already.  The Registrar does not
actually "pay" the fee, it is added as a debit to that registrar's account.
 Some simple accounting adjustments could possibly be included to ensure
that this is not a hardship, in any case.

The ICANN recommendation only shifts the issue to the registry, at an
unspecified cost I might add.  Recovering the name from the registry would
require much more in resourses/time/money than recovering that same name
directly from the registrar.  Now with the added talk of somehow being able
to "recover it through any registrar, not just the original registrar"  I
see far more potential problems and potential for fraud than in the plan I
sketched out.

Whatever fine tuning this plan would require, I strongly believe that it
would accomplish the objectives for all involved in a far more effective
and economical manner than the ICANN proposal.

Harold Whiting
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 03:15:23 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Uniform Domain Deletion Policy needed - at the  REGISTRAR level.

Friday, Friday, February 22, 2002, 3:03:07 AM, Harold Whiting wrote:

> At 02:29 AM 2/22/2002 -0800, you wrote:
>>Friday, Friday, February 22, 2002, 2:17:18 AM, Harold Whiting wrote:
>>
>>> 2. Domains that remain unpaid 40 days post expiry date shall be returned to
>>> the registry to be made available for re-registration.  Registry shall
>>> queue all names marked for deletion using the standard "5 day hold" process
>>> used now.  No unpaid names shall remain in the registrar's control after 45
>>> days, unpaid names must be deleted. Period. Registry fees charged to
>>> Registrar's account will be refunded on all names returned to registry by
>>> day 45 (just like now, except the registrar will now HAVE to hold the name
>>> at least 40 days).
>>
>>This is a problem, Harold.
>>
>>In effect you are mandating that a registrar tie up potentially
>>hundreds of thousands of dollars of its capital in past due domain
>>registration fees.  While this is not an issue for larger registrars,
>>or registrars owned by the Registry, or Registrars owned by larger
>>corporations, the smaller registries are the ones most likely to be
>>hurt by this, and potentially forced out of the business, or prevented
>>from getting into the business in the first place.
>>
>>The ICANN recommendation eliminates that problem, and for that reason,
>>I think a strong argument can be made that it is the more fair option.

> William,

>   This is the way the "grace period" works already.  The Registrar does not
> actually "pay" the fee, it is added as a debit to that registrar's account.
>  Some simple accounting adjustments could possibly be included to ensure
> that this is not a hardship, in any case.

Right, but the grace period is optional.  Your proposal would REQUIRE
the registrar to utilize it, and force them to float a larger amount
of their capital in their registry account.

> The ICANN recommendation only shifts the issue to the registry, at an
> unspecified cost I might add.

Well, the cost at the Registry is negligible at best.  $1 for the
recovery would probably add a nice profit into it as well  :)

>  Recovering the name from the registry would
> require much more in resourses/time/money than recovering that same name
> directly from the registrar.  Now with the added talk of somehow being able
> to "recover it through any registrar, not just the original registrar"  I
> see far more potential problems and potential for fraud than in the plan I
> sketched out.

Depends on how it is implemented.  If the registry is required to
grace period the domain, the registrar should be required to maintain
the whois data for the same period.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --

"There is no better way to exercise the imagination than the study of
the law. No artist ever interpreted nature as freely as a lawyer
interprets the truth."
- -- Jean Giradoux

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: 22 Feb 2002 12:26:02 +0000
From: Abel Wisman <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Uniform Domain Deletion Policy needed - at the REGISTRAR level.

As Harold said, this is "mostly" an accounting matter only, registrars
are not immediately paying for the domains, however, to save everybody
some money including the registry the following can be added as a
moderate change to current procedures:

"Renewal fees to the registry will be charged to the registrar upon the
45th day of expiry, if such a domain is not returned to the registry.
The fees will then be non-returnable and the domain will be deemed to be
renewed by the original registrant."

This solves the registry the trouble of booking the domain twice (in and
out) solves the registrars problem of money on hold (credit-rating)
And solved the "hoarding" problem even further by assuming when not
returned the original owner renewed.
This in turn eliminates a full set of traffic on a domain renewal with
the registry and hence saves more money and "occupancy" of lines.

Often the simplest solutions are the best. 
In my opinion adding this to Harold's plan makes the ICANN proposal seem
a good starting point where with the current proposals here we might
actually have something that would work

abel wisman

On Fri, 2002-02-22 at 10:29, William X Walsh wrote:
> Friday, Friday, February 22, 2002, 2:17:18 AM, Harold Whiting wrote:
> 
> > 2. Domains that remain unpaid 40 days post expiry date shall be returned to
> > the registry to be made available for re-registration.  Registry shall
> > queue all names marked for deletion using the standard "5 day hold" process
> > used now.  No unpaid names shall remain in the registrar's control after 45
> > days, unpaid names must be deleted. Period. Registry fees charged to
> > Registrar's account will be refunded on all names returned to registry by
> > day 45 (just like now, except the registrar will now HAVE to hold the name
> > at least 40 days).
> 
> This is a problem, Harold.
> 
> In effect you are mandating that a registrar tie up potentially
> hundreds of thousands of dollars of its capital in past due domain
> registration fees.  While this is not an issue for larger registrars,
> or registrars owned by the Registry, or Registrars owned by larger
> corporations, the smaller registries are the ones most likely to be
> hurt by this, and potentially forced out of the business, or prevented
> from getting into the business in the first place.
> 
> The ICANN recommendation eliminates that problem, and for that reason,
> I think a strong argument can be made that it is the more fair option.
> 
> -- 
> Best regards,
> William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
> --
> 
> "There is no better way to exercise the imagination than the study of
> the law. No artist ever interpreted nature as freely as a lawyer
> interprets the truth."
> -- Jean Giradoux
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 12:35:42 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Uniform Domain Deletion Policy needed - at the REGISTRAR level.

Harold and all assembly members,

  Good points here Harold.  Indeed a mandatory delete process
needs to be imposed upon all of the registrars and registries and
then enforced rigidly.

Harold Whiting wrote:

> As of a few days ago, NSI Registrar was backlogged with over 1.3 MILLION
> names that are overdue for deletion.  Perhaps I should mention that this is
> just the number of .COM names... total overdue seems to be well over 2
> MILLION at this count.  What is that, ~14% of all names registered by VeriSign?
>
> Chuck Gomes recently made the comment that the "the current high monthly
> rate at which names are now deleting " should deplete the backlog soon.
> However VeriSign Registrar (NSI Registrar) has failed to release anything
> for almost 2 months!
>
> It was my understanding that VeriSign Registrar had pledged last year to
> have "eliminated the backlog entirely" by the first quarter of '02.  By my
> calendar, that leave them about a week to live up to that - something I
> don't see happening.
>
> All this talk of "post deletion processes" and such, is off the mark, IMO.
> What is needed is a UNIFORM Registrar's Deletion Policy that EVERY
> registrar is mandated to follow.  Something like this:
>
> 1. Upon expiration of registration, should renewal fees not be paid to the
> registrar, that name will be immediately put "on hold" and become unusable
> to the registrant for a period of not less than 40 days, unless renewal is
> made. Name may be renewed at any time during this period and promptly
> removed from "on hold" status.
>
> 2. Domains that remain unpaid 40 days post expiry date shall be returned to
> the registry to be made available for re-registration.  Registry shall
> queue all names marked for deletion using the standard "5 day hold" process
> used now.  No unpaid names shall remain in the registrar's control after 45
> days, unpaid names must be deleted. Period. Registry fees charged to
> Registrar's account will be refunded on all names returned to registry by
> day 45 (just like now, except the registrar will now HAVE to hold the name
> at least 40 days).
>
> 3.  All names will stay in the registry deletion queue for 5 days, then
> they shall be deleted and be made available during the regular scheduled
> batch deletion only.
>
> This does many things and adds no additional layers/load/processes/nonsense.
>
> 1. It provides the original Registrant with at least 40 days of opportunity
> to "redeem/recover" the name in the most expeditious way possible - from
> the registrar.
>
> 2. It provides the original Registrant with plenty of notice (domain
> doesn't work for 40 days) and gives registrant ample opportunity to reclaim
> the name.
>
> 3. It provides a uniforn deletion process and schedule for both the
> registrar and the registry, so there is no further complications.
>
> 4. It eliminates the "Hoarding/Warehousing" problem completely.
>
> True, this does not provide VGRS with any sort of "additional revenue" from
> some invented "product/service" but it does serve the registrants interests
> and also removes a lot of the issues on the table right now in the most
> elementary fashion.
>
> --HJW--
>
> Harold Whiting
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 14:29:57 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] ALSC Forum archives down?

For the last twelve hours I have been unable to reach the ALSC Forum 
archives.  Anyone else having this problem?
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 15:32:34 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ALSC Forum archives down?

Danny and all assembly members,

  Yes I too have just checked and am unable to pul up the
Archives as well...

[email-masked] wrote:

> For the last twelve hours I have been unable to reach the ALSC Forum
> archives.  Anyone else having this problem?
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 17:24:09 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Domain plus?

I post this comment to the GA list because the ALSC may not currently be 
operative.

The latest recommendation from the ALSC (posted at: 
http://www.atlargestudy.org/decision.shtml ) stipulates that a voting 
At-Large member must either own a domain name and pay a membership fee, or be 
subscribed to an ICANN mailing list and remit a membership fee by credit card 
payment, or attend an ICANN meeting in person, or belong to and remit payment 
through specified organizations (identities still unknown) that contribute to 
ICANN's mission.

In my view, this proposal would seem to deny voting rights to most of the 
developing world.  

The White Paper states:  "The new corporation should operate as a private 
entity for the benefit of the Internet community as a whole. The development 
of sound, fair, and widely accepted policies for the management of DNS will 
depend on input from the broad and growing community of Internet users. 
Management structures should reflect the functional and geographic diversity 
of the Internet and its users. Mechanisms should be established to ensure 
international participation in decision making."

This latest proposal does very little to ensure international voter 
participation, and effectively reduces the worldwide input desired.  I cannot 
support this latest proposal in its current form.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 16:32:38 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Addressing Authorities Defend Deleted Name 'Grace Period' 

All assembly members,

FYI

  News.com's recent article on the redemption plan...
See:  http://www.newsbytes.com/news/02/174678.html

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 17:22:58 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Domain plus?

Danny and all assembly members,

[email-masked] wrote:

> I post this comment to the GA list because the ALSC may not currently be
> operative.

  Thank you for doing so.  It seems that the ALSC Archives at least
are still down or unavailable.  :(

>
>
> The latest recommendation from the ALSC (posted at:
> http://www.atlargestudy.org/decision.shtml ) stipulates that a voting
> At-Large member must either own a domain name and pay a membership fee, or be
> subscribed to an ICANN mailing list and remit a membership fee by credit card
> payment, or attend an ICANN meeting in person, or belong to and remit payment
> through specified organizations (identities still unknown) that contribute to
> ICANN's mission.

  Tying membership strictly to a credit card is a poor if a non workable
requirement to be sure.  Of course this has been communicated to the
ALSC, the ICANN BoD and staff on many occasions from many
different sectors and participants in a number of different countries.
To me this seems like a "Road Block" set up purposefully to restrict
membership...

  BTW Danny did you also view the "Decision Tree" link at
http://www.atlargestudy.org/decisiontree.shtml from your referenced
link?  Interesting in that it is so inaccurate as to be stupefying...

>
>
> In my view, this proposal would seem to deny voting rights to most of the
> developing world.

  Yes indeed it would...

>
>
> The White Paper states:  "The new corporation should operate as a private
> entity for the benefit of the Internet community as a whole. The development
> of sound, fair, and widely accepted policies for the management of DNS will
> depend on input from the broad and growing community of Internet users.
> Management structures should reflect the functional and geographic diversity
> of the Internet and its users. Mechanisms should be established to ensure
> international participation in decision making."
>
> This latest proposal does very little to ensure international voter
> participation, and effectively reduces the worldwide input desired.  I cannot
> support this latest proposal in its current form.
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 09:30:08 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Talk about sleaze.

I just got done chatting with an ISP in India who has been doing all
their domain registrations through Verisign, as a business partner,
and getting their bulk volume discounts, etc.  They had decided to
start using a new registrar, and transfer their customer domains over
to this new registrar.

According to this ISP, the Verisign people who got in touch with them
to try to woo them back started telling them things like how if they
move to a new registrar, there is no guarantee that registrar will be
in business a year from now, and then went so far as to say that if
that registrar goes out of business, all their customer domains would
be completely lost, and they would be responsible for that.

I knew Verisign was sleazy, but this was a new low.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --

"There is no better way to exercise the imagination than the study of
the law. No artist ever interpreted nature as freely as a lawyer
interprets the truth."
- -- Jean Giradoux

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1048
*************************